Adam Rapp's insurance status questioned after SOTU speech

Remember that 23-year-old cancer patient sitting in Michelle Obama’s box at the State of the Union? The one who the White House said got covered under the young adult dependent provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law?

Well, Adam Rapp may have actually been covered by a similar law from his home state of Illinois. Or maybe not.

Text Size

-

+

reset

In an interview with a Los Angeles radio station, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said: “It turns out that Adam, who is a great example of one of the young adults who is really in a life or death situation, I got to visit with him some yesterday and he had cancer, it went into remission, and then when he turned 23 the cancer came back with a vengeance. And he actually was lucky enough to live in one of the very few states, in Illinois, where Illinois had passed a law, up to age 26, that actually preceded our national strategy in the Affordable Care Act. So Adam was living in a state where that policy was already in place.”

That’s a bit different from what the White House press office said when it announced Rapp as a guest: “On his 23rd birthday, he was diagnosed with cancer, and without the Affordable Care Act he would have lost health insurance coverage the same day.” The Illinois law went into effect in June 2009.

Republican critics pointed out the discrepancy to reporters on Thursday. But an administration official said there is some fine print here. Illinois does have young adult dependent law — but it’s not as broad and inclusive as the federal measure.

And according to the information the family received from the insurance company, Rapp did get his coverage through the health care reform law.

“As Secretary Sebelius said, Illinois state law was better than most states when it comes to covering young adults — but the Rapp family’s insurance company [told the family] that he got coverage because of the Affordable Care Act,” the administration official said. “Either way, 2.5 million more young adults — in all 50 states — have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. That’s 2.5 million Americans who would be without coverage if congressional Republicans had their way.”

Sebelius, by the way, said in the interview that the topic of insuring young adults resonates in her own family.

“Our sons, when they graduated from college, did not have that opportunity to stay on a family plan, and neither of them were going into jobs where they have insurance coverage,” said Sebelius, the former governor of Kansas, which had no law like Illinois.

Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:09 p.m. on January 26, 2012.

Ms. Sebelius' children did not have insurance before age 26, and in all likelihood, did not need it, like most people of that age. How many young people who are now "covered" actually need the expense?

Ms. Sebelius' children did not have insurance before age 26, and in all likelihood, did not need it, like most people of that age. How many young people who are now "covered" actually need the expense?

Does it matter? As the person in my family paying the premiums, I should have the right to decide whether to continue my offspring on my policy until they can afford their own, right?

I don't seek a handout to help paying for these premiums. I simply sought for many years the right to decide whether to continue them on my plan or not. And since June 10, 2009, my state has already had this sort of bill, but it extends the age to 29 being the last year an adult can be covered on their families plan.

So, if I may be so bold, who are YOU to decide what my adult daughter may or may not need? As her parent, the guarantor of her medical expenses, and the payer of the premiums, that is my right and my right alone.

At 26 my husband had served in Korea (Marines) and had been married to me for three years while attending LaSalle College, Phila. under the GI Bill (there were no student loans, and we wouldn't have used them anyway) and working part-time. I was 23, college graduate, working for Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Phila. We were both covered under MSD's health insurance, had a nice apartment, basic furniture, no car (plenty of good public transportation at that time). We were saving to buy our first home which we did a year later. The LAST thing we would ever do is live with or rely on our parents. It was so exciting and wonderful to be on our own. We didn't have a whole lot of money, but what we had we used carefully. I remember he even put chains on cars (long before snow tires) at night one winter while he was in college to earn extra money, and part of that money went to buy me new shoes since my only pair had worn thin. We were young, strong, and thrilled to be INDEPENDENT. We've now been happily married 51 years. It boggles my mind to think that at 26 we would have been considered dependent children. We would have been ashamed. What ever happened to the old idiom "You raise the little birds to fly the nest."?

First, no one is arguing that a parent shouldn't be able to provide health insurance for a grown child. But....I feel no obligation to subsidize it for them. There was always the option of the parent providing an individual policy. The child didn't HAVE to be listed on the parent's policy. I presume it was done because it's cheaper than an individual policy. And I strongly suspect the "cheaper" option is being paid for by higher premiums for me and you and everyone else. Like so many things in the health care bill, higher costs are just spread out more widely so none of us can tell the full cost of any given program.

But the thing that really gauls me is that Ms. Sebelius could certainly afford individual policies for her sons. She says they graduated college, yet they didn't "go into" jobs with insurance coverage. Why not? I had to make some concessions in my career if I wanted insurance. Why shouldn't they do the same? And, if they don't, then make that decision knowing your mother is going to have to pay for your policy....don't ask me to subsidize it !!!!

So, as we debate this issue, please keep in mind that it's not like these young people couldn't get insurance. It's just that they want cheaper insurance than those of us who pay for our own. And they want all of us to pay for it.

So a law states that Insurance Companies be required to cover children until they are 26 on their parent's insurance.

Nowhere does it say that the child has to stay on the insurance. Nowhere does it say that the parents have to cover their child IF THEIR CHILD CAN AFFORD THEIR OWN. Though it probably does say that the parent has to cover the child if the child CANNOT afford their own. You know, so that there isn't the need for a subsidy unless the FAMILY cannot afford insurance.

And again. Federal Law states that Health Care providers cannot turn away patients for treatment. Meaning that someone has to pay for everyone that gets care but doesn't have insurance.

So everyone complaining that the mandate is unconstitutional, remember. The product that the law is talking about is Health CARE. Not Health Insurance. The mandate simply assumes that everyone is going to use Health CARE at some point, and is making it so that the user is the one who pays for it, not everyone else.

I do agree that the insurance should be tied to the individual, and not to the job. But that would require very well run exchanges to make sure that individual insurance was prohibitively expensive. But in my opinion, Health Insurance should be like Life or Home or Car Insurance. It goes with the thing being insured.